CRR Hears Complaint of Telephone Abuse As Anderson, Defendant Dispute Rules

The CRR held a hearing Wednesday afternoon concerning a Radcliffe senior-who has asked that her name be withhold-for harassing telephone calls traced to her phone.

The telephone calls were made to David A. Guberman '71 after he testified in four cases related to the "Counter Teach-In" disruption. On the night of May 4, he began receiving the calls during which the other party remained silent when Guberman said "hello."

Eight Calls Traced

Guberman went to the phone company's office on May 11 and authorized the company to tap his phone and to take any necessary court action. The company's tap picked up eight calls early the following morning, from 12:53 to 2:17 a. m., and traced them to the defendant's phone.

On May 21, Guberman field charges against the defendant with the CRR, accusing her of "intense personal harassment." Wednesday's two-hour hearing, which seven of the ten CRR members attended, was noteworthy because the case was a change of pace from the usual assortment of CRR charges stemming from the "Counter Teach-In."

At the beginning of the hearing, the defendant objected to the tape-recording of the session. She said she feared that the tape might be subpoenaed in criminal court, and suggested that a tape was not required under CRR by laws.

Donald G. Anderson, McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics and chairman of the CRR, overruled her and said, "We had different rules last year. But we pledge we will do the best we can to prevent other people from having access to the tape."

In his introductory remarks, Anderson said, "There's potential dual overlap with the Administrative Board. It's a little unclear where a situation like this belongs. But no new complaints can be filed on the basis of what's brought forth during this hearing."

Same Nature

Walter A. Reiser Jr., professor of Law who has prosecuted many CRR cases on behalf of the Administration, acted as Guberman's adviser. Reiser questioned Guberman, who said all except two calls were of the same nature-coming in the early morning without any conversation from the caller.

"Therefore," Reiser said, "we have some evidence that all of the phone calls came from her room." When the defendant, her advisor, and her observers protested, Martin L. Kilson, professor of Government and a CRR member, said, "Don't worry. We're not clods."

Defendant Was Studying

The defendant called one witness, who testified that the defendant had been studying in the inner room of her two room single while the calls were placed. He said she went into the outer room of her suite after two or three calls had been made and asked the person placing the calls to desist.

Thinking her request would be honored, she returned to her bedroom. She came out for another study break 45 minutes later, after the eighth call had been placed, and yelled that absolutely no further calls to Guberman could be made from her phone, the witness said.

Both the witness and the defendant said they knew who made the calls but that they would not tell the CRR.

Anderson had said earlier that "the purpose of the hearing is not to search cut who made the calls, if she [the defendant] didn't. However, 'intense personal harassment' doesn't necessarily mean that she made the calls herself."

In summation, Reiser said. "No apology was made until the defendant had her back up against the wall. That leads to a very clear inference that she was a participant in whatever harassment took place, even if you find she did not make these calls herself."

Travesty

"It would be a travesty if she and her witness could avoid this thing by saying they won't say who was in the room. It's a deliberate disregard of the processes of this committee," Reiser added. "I? the committee does not have any power to make a decision, what recourse does a student have other than going to the criminal court, which seems to me desirable to avoid?"

In summing up the case, the defendant repeated that she did not make or approve the telephone calls. She submitted a letter from her House Master who said that after talking to the defendant, he felt she did not make the calls and that she held the concept of harassing telephone calls "in utter contempt."

After the hearing, Guberman said, "If she had came by the next day and apologized, the whole thing would have stopped right there."